View Profile: Wulffolk - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About Wulffolk

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 30
About Wulffolk
Location:
Detroit, MI USA
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
440
Posts Per Day
0.69
Last Post
Survivor Appendix N Authors- LEIBER WINS! Thursday, 23rd August, 2018 06:51 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
6
General Information
Last Activity
Saturday, 22nd September, 2018 10:34 PM
Join Date
Friday, 30th December, 2016
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

Thursday, 20th September, 2018


Friday, 17th November, 2017

  • 09:47 PM - Lanefan mentioned Wulffolk in post Come out and put yourself on the Gygax scale!
    Much like Wulffolk in post 2, I'd like to think of myself as G1 and if I only ever played would probably be there, but DMing has made me pay more attention to mechanics than I'd like. So, a split vote for me: As player: G1 or even G0 As DM: G3 Lanefan

Tuesday, 31st October, 2017


Monday, 30th October, 2017

  • 03:31 AM - Nevvur mentioned Wulffolk in post Solution to ASI Problem
    Wulffolk If I'm reading this correctly, it would make it impossible to achieve a score of 20 unless you're a demihuman and/or a fighter. For demihumans, I like this since it mimics racial maximums, an artifact from prior editions I thought was a better model for making races distinctive. It also gives fighters some love - not that I personally think they need fixing, but past threads indicate dissatisfaction by a not insignificant number of players. It will also push maximized ability scores to much later levels, another aspect I find thematically appropriate. The biggest problem I foresee in a system like this is widening the gulf in ability scores for min-maxers. I don't think the disincentive of higher costs is going to prevent most of them (us) from pursuing the maximum primary ability score. I'm not overlooking the fact you intend this system to present the choice as a meaningful trade-off, but I suspect implementing this system is going to result in lower Constitution scores. Thus, one ...

Tuesday, 24th October, 2017

  • 03:24 PM - Coroc mentioned Wulffolk in post Forget about the treasure and pricing system of 5E!
    Wulffolk exactly, that tends to get overlooked also you gotta carry your stuff out of the dungeon. If you are of those DMs who say oh no i do not want to houserule this in a reasonable way but i want to go by the book and not alter official hoards then just use the official encumbrance rules also!sorry cannot cite proper on this machine and formatting goes pear also i refer to your reply on page 4 or so of the thread

Tuesday, 26th September, 2017

  • 08:56 PM - Lanefan mentioned Wulffolk in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    Not a bad one, although I think I'd prefer it to be "replace lowest with a 4 if it's <4". Taking away someone's 18 because of your variant method would suck. :) Averaage 12.5, about 3/4 of rolls between 11 and 15. Not bad.Can't claim credit for this one - it's a retype of a Wulffolk idea, so as to compare it to other methods for range and average. Lanefan

Sunday, 24th September, 2017

  • 09:58 AM - Lanefan mentioned Wulffolk in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    I am just waiting for this thread to finally sputter off and die so that I can post a new thread on this exact same subject in a couple of weeks, once this thread falls far enough that somebody too lazy to scroll a little or do a search won't see it immediately. ;-)Alignment audit on Wulffolk - - - this action brings you one step closer to Evil. Lan-"and I ain't no angel myself"-efan

Friday, 17th March, 2017

  • 09:03 AM - pming mentioned Wulffolk in post Making Intelligence less of a dump stat
    Hiya! I'm not going to presume what both @Wulffolk and @Blue would say on this reply, but for me... @pming Ė adjudication is largely irrelevant in analyzing ďdump-statsĒ. Itís akin to having a class that underperforms in most identifiable metrics, but the DM just so happens to create situations that only that class can succeed in. It doesnít mean the hypothetical class is good, just that they can be babied like anything else. Your anecdote is amusing, sure, and I canít speak to your group in particular, but in mine that type of thing would happen once and only once. The players would simply opt to write down pertinent information and weíre right back to square 1. But what about "square 2"? When the players forgot to write down the colour of the flower that some little girl that delivered a message to the PC's as they walked down the street a few days ago, and some other detail? If I, as DM (obviously) describe the girl as "A cute little human girl, maybe 10 years of age with long, blond, braided hair with a yellow flower in it. She...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Sunday, 29th July, 2018

  • 06:28 PM - Satyrn quoted Wulffolk in post So Now We Are Paying for Early Access?
    Aren't we all just paying to play-test for the next edition of whatever game we play anyways? I have been play-testing for D&D 6e since 1980 and have spent $100's of dollars along the way. I certainly paid a lot to playtest 4e, if people are right when they said the late 3.5 stuff were experiments.

Saturday, 21st July, 2018

  • 12:13 AM - Morrus quoted Wulffolk in post Survivor Languages: DRACONIC WINS!
    Huh? Another nonsense post by a fresh account that necro's a thread for no reason. I wonder who the troll is and why they keep doing stupid stuff like rhis. Itís a spambot. Report them so we can nuke them from orbit. You can spot them by the random links they include. But donít reply to them as that means the link they were propagating has been successfully preserved and propagated into another post (i.e. yours). You just did exactly what the the spambot designer planned you to do, as did a thousand people on a thousand other forums the bot just posted to. :) So if you could edit the spambotís link out of your quote, that would help!

Friday, 15th June, 2018


Wednesday, 13th June, 2018

  • 02:54 AM - Umbran quoted Wulffolk in post Time Travel in yourgame?
    There is no worse aspect of science fiction or fantasy than time travel . . . well, except maybe gnomes. ;-) Remind us to stick you in the game with time travelling gnomes!

Sunday, 3rd June, 2018

  • 03:06 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Wulffolk in post 2d10 as Replacement for d20?
    Except that succeeding against average difficulties means that you are likely succeeding in low pressure situations where there is minimal risk. At that point who really cares? I would much rather double my chances of success against difficult opponents than be able to wipe the floor with minions one round faster. So, even though that +1 helps in both case, I find it to be more valuable in a dice pool system where there is less deviation, especially against higher difficulty numbers. Hence, why I included that qualifier about point of view. I touched on that point, but you STILL benefit more in the middle of the curve, and I don't agree that the middle of the curve is 'low pressure situations'. In 4e its the vast bulk of ALL situations. I believe this is true with most modern RPGs, which generally aim for a fairly high success rate in the 50-80% range.

Saturday, 2nd June, 2018

  • 03:29 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Wulffolk in post 2d10 as Replacement for d20?
    I would think that the math shows exactly the opposite, depending on your point of view. When rolling a dice pool every +1 is even more valuable because it exponentially increases your odds of hitting higher numbers. The less deviation in results the more valuable each bonus point becomes. With no bonus to the roll of 2d10 there is a 1 in 100 chance of getting a total of 20. With a +1 that increases to 3 in 100. A +2 makes that 6 in 100. +3 gives you a 10 in 100 chance. As you can see, each bonus point becomes more valuable, not less. With an 19 difficulty a +1 increases your chances from 3 in 100 to 6 in 100. That is a 50% increase in your chance to succeed. However, when the target is 12 a +1 will take you from 45 in 100 to 55 in 100. That is only a 22% increase. A 50% increase is more valuable than a 22% increase, depending on the circumstances. I would think that using a dice pool makes players more likely to maximise bonuses, but I am fine with that because I prefer more predictable out...

Friday, 1st June, 2018

  • 06:40 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Wulffolk in post 2d10 as Replacement for d20?
    . When rolling a dice pool every +1 is even more valuable because it exponentially increases your odds of hitting higher numbers. The less deviation in results the more valuable each bonus point becomes. When you're near the middle of the range, as you push further from it, you get diminishing returns. It encourages more moderate bonuses, because overkill doesn't buy you much. You have to think more about the cost of that next +1. It depends on the rest of the system, though - with 4e and it's wide range of bonuses over levels it might not help a lot over that range , OTOH, it's fairly tight balance at a given level it could work pretty well. With no bonus to the roll of 2d10 there is a 1 in 100 chance of getting a total of 20. With a +1 that increases to 3 in 100. And, on a straight d20, it's 5% per. But you don't start at needing a 20 to succeed, usually more like an 11, so the first net +1 is huge, and the marginal value declines from there. I would think that using a di...

Saturday, 5th May, 2018

  • 07:20 PM - Jester David quoted Wulffolk in post Dungeons & Dragons has 15 Million Players in NA Alone; Storyline Is "The Da Vinci Code meets Gangs of New York"
    Personal observations are the reason for my skepticism. I did not present them as hard data by which to call out WotC for some grand conspiracy. However, companies are infamous for presenting skewed data to improve their image with the public. They would like more female players. What better way to make it appear to be socially acceptable to women than by pointing out how many women already play the game? I swear by Odin (or insert whatever fictional god you prefer) that people have never even heard of the rights of others to have an opinion (especially when it is different than their own). People are too damned sensitive these days. Skepticism in moderation is healthy. It means you think for yourself rather than blindly accepting everything that you are told. Personal observations are key. But how many gamers and groups have you seen and observed? Of the fifteen million. Would you say seen 15,000 gamers, which would be the number needed to make a remotely representative sampling? ...
  • 04:47 PM - Parmandur quoted Wulffolk in post Dungeons & Dragons has 15 Million Players in NA Alone; Storyline Is "The Da Vinci Code meets Gangs of New York"
    Personal observations are the reason for my skepticism. I did not present them as hard data by which to call out WotC for some grand conspiracy. However, companies are infamous for presenting skewed data to improve their image with the public. They would like more female players. What better way to make it appear to be socially acceptable to women than by pointing out how many women already play the game? I swear by Odin (or insert whatever fictional god you prefer) that people have never even heard of the rights of others to have an opinion (especially when it is different than their own). People are too damned sensitive these days. Skepticism in moderation is healthy. It means you think for yourself rather than blindly accepting everything that you are told.There is skepticism, and then there is paranoia. 40% is less than my personal experience of the female percentage of players, too, and women are well represented in streaming shows and the fandoms for those shows, which is where new play...
  • 08:12 AM - TheSword quoted Wulffolk in post Dungeons & Dragons has 15 Million Players in NA Alone; Storyline Is "The Da Vinci Code meets Gangs of New York"
    Based upon nothing more than my personal observations, I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that 40% women statistic. I do agree that it is marginally better than the old days, but not by that much. I would find 20-25% to be much more believable. It would be nice if WotC market research accurately reflected reality, because a healthy gender ratio does enhance the game significantly, but i just don't buy it. You can be sceptical, but I donít believe large companies concerned about their reputation, go to press unless they are confident they wonít be challenged. Better to stay silent or low ball than get called out and generate bad press. Hasbro arenít scrappy insurgents they are a massive multinational company. Two groups that I play in have a female player - that sets us at 25%. They certainly wasnít the case 30 years ago when I started. I think youíre underestimating how many people play as a family - in which case the split may be 50/50 or higher and will raise the average. I have eve...

Saturday, 28th April, 2018

  • 04:25 PM - gyor quoted Wulffolk in post Way of the Succubus Monk
    This subject requires reading the room. I have more time playing World of Darkness games than D&D, even though I have played D&D longer. The WoD games are based on the player characters being monsters (Vampires, Werewolves, Wraiths, Changelings, Mages, Hunters, etc). I don't think that many players in those games would balk at role-playing almost any adult situation, and most such players are usually quite good at communicating the limits of their tolerance. There is an explicit understanding in the WoD games that you will be exploring horrific topics. Morality, and the violation of ethical codes, are major aspects of the game. Even one murder is taken seriously and has consequences. On the other hand, D&D tends to be much less serious in it's regard for moral issues. The assumption is that racism and murder is OK, but anything to do with sex is not. A Character can slaughter entire tribes of humanoids just because they are a different race and never even question their morality, but tha...
  • 11:20 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted Wulffolk in post What have you found to be the hardest thing for new players to understand about 5e systems?
    Certainly, my observations were anecdotal, and to some extent were a product of self-selection, but probably less so than you are imagining. As mentioned, with no internet during that time it is hard to make any observation on this subject that is not just conjecture.And that admission ought to have been the end of the conversation. At the very least, if you absolutely had to forge on, you probably should not have complained about poor problem-solving ability, after brushing under the rug the parts of your own anecdotal evidence that were inconvenient to your position. Or about lack of consideration, in the midst of repeating broad unflattering stereotypes about a group of people rather than showing any interest in understanding them. Or about focus-impairing media addiction, only to cite an 84-minute Hollywood comedy for your model of social evolution.
  • 02:23 AM - Chaosmancer quoted Wulffolk in post How many gods is too many gods?
    Chaosmancer Government is real, of course. Faith in your government to do the right thing is a choice that is rarely based on actual evidence. You can have faith in your fellow man to be good, but evidence does not necessarily support that. A soldier may trust the other men in his platoon on faith, but he has no evidence that they would endanger themself for his benefit until the situation actually happens. Faith in various forms of public servants is better defined as hope for their ability to render timely aid, without knowing for certain. In each of those examples the faith is placed in something that you can't know for certain already. Once you know something for certain then believing it is no longer an act of faith, but rather a result of observation. Okay, so how is faith based in your god being willing or capable of helping you in your time of need certain? Do you know for certain that Waukeen is watching over your deal and will give you a beneficial transaction instea...
  • 01:47 AM - quoted Wulffolk in post Way of the Succubus Monk
    This subject requires reading the room. I have more time playing World of Darkness games than D&D, even though I have played D&D longer. The WoD games are based on the player characters being monsters (Vampires, Werewolves, Wraiths, Changelings, Mages, Hunters, etc). I don't think that many players in those games would balk at role-playing almost any adult situation, and most such players are usually quite good at communicating the limits of their tolerance. There is an explicit understanding in the WoD games that you will be exploring horrific topics. Morality, and the violation of ethical codes, are major aspects of the game. Even one murder is taken seriously and has consequences. On the other hand, D&D tends to be much less serious in it's regard for moral issues. The assumption is that racism and murder is OK, but anything to do with sex is not. A Character can slaughter entire tribes of humanoids just because they are a different race and never even question their morality, but tha...
  • 12:20 AM - Chaosmancer quoted Wulffolk in post How many gods is too many gods?
    Lanefan That may be true. That is why I do not run settings in which the gods physically manifest. In a world in which the gods participate directly it diminishes player agency and character accountability. Gods that physically participate in a setting are not really gods. They are just very powerful creatures with extremely powerful supernatural abilities. There can be no "faith" in such a world, only service to the over-lord of your choice. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. When a god is directly intervening in the world then belief is no longer faith, but scientific observation. When D&D started assigning Hit Points, Armor Class, Class Levels and other stats to the gods in Deities & Demigods they made the mistake of creating just another Monster Manual for over the top Monty Haul campaigns. The gods were no longer concepts that shaped societies, but became targets for epic level character's to hunt, or who's ranks any mortal could join after gaining enough levels. I p...

Friday, 27th April, 2018

  • 10:11 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Wulffolk in post What have you found to be the hardest thing for new players to understand about 5e systems?
    What I can attest to were these observations: 1 - In 1980 interest in D&D swept through my suburban community." 6 - D&D became so popular that we played at school during recess and even had after school clubs where even non-geeks joined in the fun with little trouble. 7 - Though the game was dominated by teen boys, we did have some girls join in and learn the game without much difficulty. I even ran some games for an exclusively girl group of my sister and her friends. 10 - As far as I know, only a small percentage of us that learned the game back then continued their interest in the hobby through their adult years and are still interested decades later. My best guess would be less than 1 in 10, though I have no way of knowing for certain. I can affirm that my experience c1980 was similar on these points. These, not so much: 2 - Every member of the local Boy Scout troop got hooked (including me). 3 - That troop included nearly 100 boys ranging in age from late elementary school to h...
  • 07:34 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Wulffolk in post What have you found to be the hardest thing for new players to understand about 5e systems?
    Why do some people find it so difficult to learn 5e? Anybody that can read should be able to learn how to play this relatively simple game. This must be symptomatic of the difference in culture between 1980 and 2018. While 5e is not as needlessly complicated as the classic game was, it's still a very complex game compared to actual, popular mainstream games that people are likely to be exposed to prior to jumping into the RPG hobby at the deep, piranha-infested end. Seriously. As a 10 year old boy I taught myself how to play a much more complicated and less logical system than 5e. And, having done that decades ago, learning 5e, a game not only less baroque than classic D&D, but still very similar too it in broad ways, can't help but seem very easy. To you - that holds whether you're a long-time player who's been exposed to everything in-between, or a returning one who hadn't played D&D this millennium. I know I sound like an old man ranting about younger generations...Yep, you do. ...
  • 10:28 AM - Lanefan quoted Wulffolk in post How many gods is too many gods?
    "How many gods is too many gods?" Even one god is too many. Oh, you mean in the context of fiction or fantasy . . . How many fictional gods has humanity dreamed up in the real world? Hundreds. For every possibility that can't currently be understood by scientific method you can expect ignorant people to attribute it to a god of some kind. Therefore, multiply the number of scientifically ignorant societies in your setting by the number of significant misunderstood factors that are important to each society = number of gods in a setting.Of course, in a magic-based fantasy setting real-world science sometimes takes a walk off the dock in any case; and when it's a setting where the deities sometimes show up in person they're suddenly not so fictional at all from your character's point of view. :) Lanefan
  • 06:24 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted Wulffolk in post What have you found to be the hardest thing for new players to understand about 5e systems?
    Anecdotally, almost everybody that I have met from my generation went through the same process and learning curve. I know I sound like an old man ranting about younger generations, but with all of the resources available online for free how can anybody possibly have any trouble learning 5e? You are of course speaking only of those from your generation who successfully learned the game and persisted in playing it for nearly three decades. The self-selection here is self-evident. Consider how many people in 1980 might have picked up the game and maybe tried to play once or twice, but ran into difficulty understanding it and so dropped it and never looked back. No internet on which ask for help also means no internet on which you could see them asking for help. They'd have been effectively invisible to you. For all you know, the failure rate for learning D&D was ten times higher back then than it is today. Or maybe people born after 1980 are just some sort of lesser subspecies of human. Could be...


Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Wulffolk's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites